To: | Raconteur Ventures Limited (babs@jamiesonlaw.legal) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90327321 - AMP - N/A |
Sent: | May 17, 2021 09:34:43 AM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90327321
Mark: AMP
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Raconteur Ventures Limited
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: May 17, 2021
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
COMPARISON OF MARKS
In the present case, applicant’s mark is AMP and registrant’s mark is AMP. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe Advertising agencies specializing in marketing strategies to promote businesses; Advertising agency services; Advertising analysis; Advertising consultation; Advertising copywriting; Advertising research; Advertising services; Advertising services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of others through all public communication means; Advertising services, namely, creating promotional murals advertising the goods and services of others; Advertising and business management consultancy; Advertising and marketing; Advertising and marketing consultancy; Advertising and promotional services; Advertising and publicity services; Advertising in the popular and professional press; Advertising on the Internet for others; Advertising, including on-line advertising on a computer network; Advertising, marketing and promotion services; Business research; Computerized market research services; Development and production of the advertising content of banners and signs for advertising, promotional, or marketing purposes; Development of marketing strategies and concepts; Development of marketing strategies, concepts and tactics, namely, audience development, brand awareness, customer relations, online community building and digital word of mouth communications; Digital advertising services; Dissemination of advertisements; Dissemination of advertisements and of advertising material; Dissemination of advertising matter; Dissemination services of advertisement matter; Distribution of advertising material; Market research; Market research services; Marketing research services; Marketing and branding services, namely, providing customized communication programs to obtain consumer insights and develop branding strategies; Media relations services; On-line advertising and marketing services; On-line advertising services for others; Online advertising and promotional services; Production of advertising materials; Production of advertising matter and commercials; Providing advertising and advertisement services; Publicity and sales promotion services; Sales promotion; Social media strategy and marketing consultancy focusing on helping clients create and extend their product and brand strategies by building virally engaging marketing solutions, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant(s)’s more narrow Compiling and analyzing data for business purposes, namely, business data, market research data, and statistical data; economic forecasting and analysis; statistical evaluations of marketing data; conducting business and marketing research surveys; preparing business reports; consumer strategy business consulting in the fields of marketing, sales, operation, and product design particularly specializing in the use of analytic models for the understanding and predicting of consumer, business, and retail market trends and actions; Real estate marketing services in the field of residential properties, commercial properties, and land. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
Since the marks and the services are identical, there is a likelihood that purchasers would confuse the sources of the services or believe they stemmed from a single source. Accordingly, registration is properly refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion.
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
In the present case, the U.S. application shows that applicant has a domicile in the United Kingdom, but the foreign application was filed in the EU.
Because applicant’s domicile is in a country different from the country in which the foreign application was filed, and from which the foreign registration will issue, applicant will need to establish that this country is applicant’s country of origin as of the date of issuance of the foreign registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §§1002.02, 1002.04. This requirement may be satisfied by providing the following written statement for the record, once the foreign registration issues: “Applicant has had a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in The European Union as of the date of issuance of the foreign registration.” TMEP §1002.04.
If applicant will not be able to assert that the country in which the foreign registration has issued is applicant’s country of origin, registration under Section 44(e) will be refused. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §1002.01-.02. In that case, applicant may delete the Section 44(e) basis and rely solely on Section 1(a) as a basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051 (a), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b); TMEP §806.04. However, applicant may still retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, if applicant’s U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date and applicant has a continuing valid basis for registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.03(h).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Scott Bibb
/ScottBibb/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
571-272-5669
scott.bibb@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE